‘Trial by ambush’ as Mzwinila laments ‘public opinion court’
Innocent Selatlhwa | Monday January 19, 2026 09:50
In the heads of argument filed before the High Court, he has accused the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of circulating the contents of their case against him on social media before he could receive the order.
For this and other reasons, Mzwinila requests that the application be dismissed with an adverse costs order.
The director of DPP (Kgosietsile Ngakaagae), under sections 35 and 37 of the Proceeds and Instruments of Crime Act (PICA), late last year approached the court seeking the restraint of an extensive portfolio of properties belonging to Mzwinila and his wife, Bridget Mzwinila.
The application was brought on an urgent and ex parte basis and culminated in the granting of a rule nisi on December 24, 2025.
The court documents flooded social media news pages, and many individuals' profiles also shared the same, expressing shock at how the Mzwinilas potentially made their riches.
The Mzwinilas have since filed opposing papers.
Amongst their submissions through attorneys Tebogo Sebego, Samuel Plaatjie, Kaelo Taupedi, and Tlhalefo Mogomotsi, they state that the case is about the invocation of extraordinary statutory powers in circumstances where the factual, legal, and procedural foundations for such relief are absent, and where court process has been used in a manner that undermines both fairness and the integrity of judicial adjudication
The attorneys argue that the manner in which the order nisi was dealt with after it was granted further compounds these concerns.
They state that rather than effecting prompt service upon the affected parties, the applicant, acting through the DPP, permitted or facilitated the circulation of the court papers and allegations in the media before service had been effected.
“The Respondents became aware of the existence and contents of the order through public reportage and commentary, and service followed only approximately a day later, after persistent follow-ups by the Respondents’ attorneys.
“In the interim, allegations of criminality were publicly ventilated while the Respondents remained procedurally disabled from responding,” they state.
This sequence, they argue, is difficult to reconcile with the asserted need for urgency and secrecy. They state ex parte relief is justified to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, not to enable parallel litigation in the court of public opinion.
“While public discourse may be stirred and reputations tried beyond repair in the arena of media spectacle, the proper forum for the determination of justiciable disputes remains this Honourable Court where evidence, not insinuation; law, not outrage; and fairness, not pre-judgment, must prevail,” they submit.
In asking the court to grant them punitive costs, the attorneys state that the DPP's conduct following the grant of the order nisi exacerbated the prejudice suffered by the Mzwinilas.
“Rather than effecting prompt service, the Applicant permitted the circulation of the court papers and allegations in the media before service was effected, exposing the Respondents to public opprobrium while they remained procedurally disabled from responding. This conduct materially increased the complexity and cost of the opposition,” they state.
In the premises, they want the court to express its displeasure at the conduct of both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Directorate of Corruption and Economic Crime by ordering that they jointly and severally pay the costs of this application on the scale between attorney and own client.